Introduction

French judges have a long history of dialogue among themselves. This ­dialogue started between the administrative judge (namely the Conseil d'État or Council of State, the highest administrative court) and the civil judge (namely the Cour de Cassation, the highest civil court), with the Tribunal des Conflicts ultimately competent to decide who shall be competent. This dialogue was progressively extended to include the Constitutional Court (Conseil Constitutionnel) following its establishment in 1958. The scope of this dialogue was also widened to include the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (and its dialogue with the Council of State, in particular) through the preliminary ruling procedure, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In fact, it is often argued that European law has been a key element in the growth of comparative method in both the Council of State and the Cour de Cassation. Finally, this dialogue was extended to include the highest courts of other countries (such as between the House of Lords and the Council of State). However, citing or referring to the jurisprudence from another national jurisdiction remains a rare exercise in French administrative courts. Thus, the full impact of foreign law on French decisions may often be a matter of speculation. That said, important information can be found in the conclusions of the commissaire du Gouvernment (the rapporteur public) as well as in the annual and special reports of the Council of State.